The Centre government recently informed the Delhi High Court that the policy of prohibiting marriage during the training term in the recruitment for the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) department is a ‘reasonable limitation’ imposed in the public interest and for national security.
The government’s stance follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought by one Kush Kalra against a notification deeming married men and women ineligible for appointment to the rank of JAG in the Indian Army.
The Central government stated in an additional affidavit filed in response to the petition challenging the embargo that the condition of being unmarried for grant of commission to cadets aged 21-27 years is “restricted only for the period of recruitment and pre-commissioned training,” which involves a great deal of stress and rigors of military training, and that the restriction on marriage before successful commission is in the interest of both the candidates and the organisation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Dutta allowed the petitioner time to file his answer to the Centre’s stance and scheduled the issue for further hearing on July 17, 2023.
The government further stated that because pregnancy and childbirth are considered inherent rights for women and cannot be denied, “such preventative measures” have been imposed in the benefit of female candidates.
“Since pregnancy and childbirth are regarded natural rights for a woman and she cannot be denied that while crafting the laws, such precautionary requirements have been placed forth in the benefit of women candidates themselves,” the statement reads.
About male officers, the government noted that the hardships of training and the first few years of service made it impossible for an officer to marry or meet certain requirements of married life, such as emergency situations, while training.
